I'm not sure I understand the main thrust of the argument.
On the one hand, GPL-type copyleft is criticized for not preventing the
appropriation (or, more precisely, use) of code by commercial, capitalist
interests. These still manage to move profits from labor (employees /
contractors who are paid less than the value their labor produces) into
the hands of the capital (shareholders, I guess).
On the other hand, Creative Commons, which precisely enables the "author"
to prevent this through the non-commercial clause is criticized for
perpetuating the proprietary logic embodied in the "author" function
controlling the use of the "work".
Which seems to leave as the conclusion that within capitalism the structure
of copyright, or IP more generally, doesn't really matter, because it
either supports directly fundamentally-flawed notions of property (à la
CC), or it does not prevent the common resource to be used in support of
capitalist ends (à la GPL). In this view, copyfights appear to articulate
a "secondary contradiction" within capitalism, which cannot solved as long
as the main contradition, that between labor and capital, is not
redressed.
Is that it?
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net